Hydro-Fracking, sometimes called hydrofracturing, is a well development process that increases the flow of water from a bedrock well by
increasing the size and extent of the bedrock fractures that bring water into the well. The procedure involves subjecting the bedrock formation to
water pressure sufficiently high enough to either extend existing bedrock fractures or create new fractures. Hydro Fracking is a more COST EFFECTIVE
alternative than drilling deeper. Water is injected into a low-yield water well at a high pressure and volume opening up and cleaning out the existing
fractures found in the rock.

Not sure if the townhall meeting has any significance on whether or not New York state permits drilling leases. As far as I know drilling permits are
issued by state agencies, not townhall meetings.

The only real argument I can find for, is that it would create jobs.

And natural gas. Natural gas which can be used in natural gas power plants, industrial boilers and residential heating systems.

Honestly though, these jobs would come at a high cost. Everywhere that has had hydro fracking has had water issues, one of which is that the water
lights on fire.

Simply not true. There have been water issues in Texas but they have arisen due to a massive drought which won't end anytime soon, not because of
hydro fracking.

Water does not light on fire because of hydro fracking. When a well is fracked it is first "stabbed" - meaning that it is cased with metallic
pipes. The pipes purpose is to keep the pressure concentrated at the end of the well - in the horizontal section - at a maximum. That way the
remainder of the well is not fracked.

Okay so,I am against hydro fracking. The jobs are not worth the cost.
Hydro fracking is already in 32 states and in 2 provinces in canada. I can't even imagine the damage it is doing across the world.

Worth what cost? There have been no major or even minor damages of water sheds, reservoirs or aquifers due to hydro fracking. Hydro fracking is a
technique of fracturing rock, not immersing vast quantities of tainted water into wells, aquifers or reservoirs.

The fracturing of rocks 3,000-7,000 feet below ground surface is not going to have an affect on reservoir rock 50-250 feet below ground surface.

The bigger issue is waste water management. It is an issue that is hardly brought up because hydro fracking has such a scary name and has a negative
connotations attached to it. After a well has been fracked there is as much as 2 million gallons of well water that needs to be disposed. Problem in
the northeast is that the waste water plants do not have the capacity to dispose of the water.

Instead water is disposed of in unoffical waste areas - which could be creeks, rivers and ponds where no one supsects waste water is being dumped.
Once the water is released into these areas the damage is done, and efforts to mitigate the damage are time consuming and costly.

They found no evidence of contamination from chemical-laden fracking fluids, which are injected into gas wells to help break up shale deposits, or
from “produced water,” wastewater that is extracted back out of the wells after the shale has been fractured.

The study appears this week in the online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It is the first peer-reviewed study to
measure well-water contamination from shale-gas drilling and hydrofracking.

So the first study of its kind published in May of this year shows no direct link to hydraulic fracking. That's not a miriad of examples, it is one
study. The whole of the Northeast has also been a historic producer of coal and oil long before hydro fracking ever took place. There also exist
natural oil seeps, methane seeps and mines in the area which can possible lead to methane contamination of groundwater.

I think it's less about the chemicals and more about the change in environment that hyrofracking brings out. sounds to me that these guys are
drilling 5 - 8,000 ft underground which sounds like there'd end up being a huge crack in the crust, im sure the occasional one here or there is ok,
but over time it would(if not destablize the crust in some way)at least cause a slight change in position of the ground up above which may or may not
be bad.

but yes......hydro fracking bad

(keeping in mind the environmental effects that i have stated are entirely speculative but either way it doesn't sound good)

I very much hope New York doesn't allow for fracking, but won't be surprised when they do.

I spent a lot of time studying this issue and I'm actually in the process of trying to get a book published that is a fictionalized account of real
stories I've heard and seen related to fracking. People do, have, and are getting sick.

Released information shows at least four different cancerous substances are included in frack fluid. I'm not a chemist, but the research is easy
enough to find.

The problem isn't with the well, per se, but rather with the disposal of waste materials and the fact work is done sloppy. You have high school kids
running around the hills, huge retaining pools full of dirty water, and companies looking for anywhere and everywhere to dump whatever they can't
recycle. On top of that, you have hazardous emissions.

If it comes to your area, the best advice I can give is make sure any stations are at least a half mile from where you breathe, live and eat. And
watch Gasland if you want to get quickly up to speed.

Here in Pennsylvania, our state government is basically stripping local municipalities of the right to refuse this in the name of improved state
safety measures. Considering millions went into the coffers of our governor's campain from the companies, I'm beyond dubious about what is
happening.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.